To find a compelling design, I went to the website of one of my favorite artists, Gary Baseman (http://www.garybaseman.com/). In the paintings menu I looked at the first in Baseman's series "I Am Your Pinata." This painting shows elements of balance, emphasis, metaphor, and narration.
This painting is balanced because of Baseman's placement of the figures. The central "pinata" figure is up just a little from the center, while the three smaller figures are below and to the left and right of the "pinata." These figures form a sort of pyramid shape making the composition seem balanced and stable.
The emphasis of this painting is clear. The "pinata" is not actually a pinata at all, but a cartoon character who has been disemboweled. Baseman emphasizes the guts by placing them at the center of the painting. The guts are given further emphasis by their gory appearance. Finally, the placement of such a gruesome element in such a cartoony environment grabs the viewer's attention and gives the work further emphasis.
"I Am Your Pinata" has an element of narration. The disemboweled cartoon character is obviously the end result of some action. Below him are three cartoon children, one of which holds a large bloody stick. Most of us know what a pinata is and what to do with it, and Baseman shows the culprit and the weapon. The story behind this painting is easy to re-construct.
If we have a culprit and a weapon, we must have a motive, and this is where the element of metaphor becomes important. What is the normal motive for beating a pinata? To break it and get the sweet candy inside it. The problem here is that there isn't any candy in this guy--only gore. However, we often say that a person is "sweet" or that we "love what's inside." Baseman has made a sort of metaphor for love, but taken it to a problematic extreme. These cartoon children apparently loved what was inside the "pinata" character, but, disregarding social conventions, took the direct route and beat him open. This can be seen as a metaphor for the damage that a naive, inexperienced, and overly-zealous love can do.
But this painting also works on another metaphorical level. The title is "I Am Your Pinata" not "We Broke the Pinata" or "Hey, Where's the Candy?" And the "pinata" character doesn't have his tongue lolling out or little cartoon Xs over his eyes. He actually is smiling and seems to be still alive somehow. This is because Baseman is also giving the viewer a metaphor for sacrifice. When we love another person deeply, we are willing to go through incredible hardships for that person. For a truly deep love, we would willingly be hurt, beaten, or even killed. Some lovers are willing to go through tremendous suffering, even at the hands of their beloved. This is the case for this character because he says, "I am your pinata." He has willingly and happily become a sacrifice (but a tragic one because his sacrifice was useless). Baseman's painting is a metaphor for this kind of sacrificial love.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Peer Review Recap Part 2
As I've mentioned before, I think peer review is an invaluable strategy to improve a piece of writing. As I noticed in the first peer-review, there are a lot of times when a writer needs to hear an objective voice. The writer can never completely remove himself from his writing. It follows that blind spots are going to be inevitable. I think it is immeasurably helpful to have my peers point out what is unclear or jarring, because a lot of the time, I just won't be able to see it. The easiest way to find the discrepancies between what's in my head and what's on the page is by getting objective feedback from other writers.
I noticed another interesting aspect of peer-review this time around. While I like getting comments from others, I think making comments on others' writing benefits my own. When I review others' papers, my own critical eye gets some practice. If I notice a problem or a difficulty in another's paper, I feel like I am better at noticing and diagnosing my own problems and difficulties. So, peer-review seems to be beneficial all around.
I don't have a preference for either google docs or wetpaint. They seemed pretty similar to me. I felt that, practically, I did pretty much the same thing with google docs as I did with wetpaint. I think I liked this peer-review better, but I only because we all have some more practice at it, not because the computer program is any better. I remember being frustrated with the first peer-review, because I had to go back through my paper and determine what was mine and what was a change someone else made. This time around, I think people caught on to using the different color fonts and this made things easier for me.
The only other thing that popped out at me in regard to this peer-review was an annoying aspect of wetpaint. When I uploaded my paper, my italics and underlines (I don't think "underlines" is a real word) disappeared. My paragraph indents had something weird going on too. I forgot to re-underline some of the words in my paper and this led to some confusion with the peer-review. This brings to mind one of my biggest beefs with high technology--I wouldn't mind using it so much if it actually worked. I think this should be the first requirement of new technology. It makes very little sense to me to replace an existing technology that works well, with a new, flashy technology that works poorly or not at all. I would prefer a method of peer-review that deals with the paper I actually wrote, as opposed to the paper that has been jumbled by cyberspace.
I noticed another interesting aspect of peer-review this time around. While I like getting comments from others, I think making comments on others' writing benefits my own. When I review others' papers, my own critical eye gets some practice. If I notice a problem or a difficulty in another's paper, I feel like I am better at noticing and diagnosing my own problems and difficulties. So, peer-review seems to be beneficial all around.
I don't have a preference for either google docs or wetpaint. They seemed pretty similar to me. I felt that, practically, I did pretty much the same thing with google docs as I did with wetpaint. I think I liked this peer-review better, but I only because we all have some more practice at it, not because the computer program is any better. I remember being frustrated with the first peer-review, because I had to go back through my paper and determine what was mine and what was a change someone else made. This time around, I think people caught on to using the different color fonts and this made things easier for me.
The only other thing that popped out at me in regard to this peer-review was an annoying aspect of wetpaint. When I uploaded my paper, my italics and underlines (I don't think "underlines" is a real word) disappeared. My paragraph indents had something weird going on too. I forgot to re-underline some of the words in my paper and this led to some confusion with the peer-review. This brings to mind one of my biggest beefs with high technology--I wouldn't mind using it so much if it actually worked. I think this should be the first requirement of new technology. It makes very little sense to me to replace an existing technology that works well, with a new, flashy technology that works poorly or not at all. I would prefer a method of peer-review that deals with the paper I actually wrote, as opposed to the paper that has been jumbled by cyberspace.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
What Others are Saying
I think Marisa raised some interesting points in her reflection upon Strunk & White and Williams. Here is the passage that caught my attention:
"Besides touching similar subjects, these two books were very different from one another. While Strunk and White just stated the rules and gave examples more or less, Williams' took the time to explain each rule in depth. This was useful because it gave me understanding on why I should do it that way instead of memorizing it and just doing the rule. On the other hand, I felt that Stunk's rules were more relevant. I felt I took more from his book on writing than I did Williams'. I may not understand why I had to do those rules but I got clear cut ways of writing."
I agree with Marisa's basic assessment of the two books. The Elements of Style is pretty bare-bones. It gives the rule, a few examples and moves on. Williams gives pages of explanation and examples for each of his rules, and this gives a more comprehensive of the issue in question.
I agree that Strunk & White's rules were relevant. Even though some may consider the book out-dated or ineffective, I found a lot of practical advice in The Elements of Style. In many of the sections, I found tips that I could easily use to immediately improve my writing.
But I would not say that Strunk & White is necessarily more relevant. While I felt like Williams was more of a chore to get through than a learning experience, he has a lot of very good information. I think that more-experienced writers will already have a pretty good grasp of a lot of these principles, but for inexperienced writers, Williams will be very relevant in forming a solid foundation. I think that following Williams' principles will help to instill the sense of flow and logical construction that is present in an experienced writer's style.
Because Williams gets down to the absolute-basics of writing, many writers will find themselves in familiar, well-worn territory. If reading Williams feels like rehashing a lot of old news, then it probably won't seem relevant. But I do think that even the most experienced writer can always improve, and it never hurts to solidify your foundations. A study of Williams, while possibly tedious, can help to strengthen a solid foundation, and give a broader, deeper understanding of how the English language is constructed.
"Besides touching similar subjects, these two books were very different from one another. While Strunk and White just stated the rules and gave examples more or less, Williams' took the time to explain each rule in depth. This was useful because it gave me understanding on why I should do it that way instead of memorizing it and just doing the rule. On the other hand, I felt that Stunk's rules were more relevant. I felt I took more from his book on writing than I did Williams'. I may not understand why I had to do those rules but I got clear cut ways of writing."
I agree with Marisa's basic assessment of the two books. The Elements of Style is pretty bare-bones. It gives the rule, a few examples and moves on. Williams gives pages of explanation and examples for each of his rules, and this gives a more comprehensive of the issue in question.
I agree that Strunk & White's rules were relevant. Even though some may consider the book out-dated or ineffective, I found a lot of practical advice in The Elements of Style. In many of the sections, I found tips that I could easily use to immediately improve my writing.
But I would not say that Strunk & White is necessarily more relevant. While I felt like Williams was more of a chore to get through than a learning experience, he has a lot of very good information. I think that more-experienced writers will already have a pretty good grasp of a lot of these principles, but for inexperienced writers, Williams will be very relevant in forming a solid foundation. I think that following Williams' principles will help to instill the sense of flow and logical construction that is present in an experienced writer's style.
Because Williams gets down to the absolute-basics of writing, many writers will find themselves in familiar, well-worn territory. If reading Williams feels like rehashing a lot of old news, then it probably won't seem relevant. But I do think that even the most experienced writer can always improve, and it never hurts to solidify your foundations. A study of Williams, while possibly tedious, can help to strengthen a solid foundation, and give a broader, deeper understanding of how the English language is constructed.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Comparing Strunk & White with Williams
Joseph Williams, in his book Style: Toward Clarity and Grace, did not address all of the issues I had with Strunk & White. For example, the main rule I disagree with in Strunk & White is "form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's." Williams didn't address this rule at all, so I suppose my question will have to go unanswered. And Joseph Williams never weighed in on the "all right/alright" controversy. To be fair, these were not exactly burning questions, so I think Williams can be forgiven for skipping them. If Williams' main goal is "Clarity and Grace," then these other issues are perhaps beyond the scope of his book. But just because these points are a bit fine doesn't mean that Williams doesn't have an eye for detail--he is incredibly thorough, and this is his book's strength.
Two of the principles I found useful in Strunk & White were to "use the active voice" and to "omit needless words." We can find these principles in Williams too, but Williams is not writing a "little book." Williams dissects these principles to see what makes them work, and to see why they work well. Williams puts using the active voice into a larger context; he shows how this concept is interrelated with others like "characters/events" and "nominalizations." Williams is incredibly thorough and takes pains to connect every dot to every other dot. If the examples in Strunk & White could be said to be insufficient, Williams examples are ample. Rather than a quick, handy reference, Williams' book is meant to be more of an in-depth study of the nuts and bolts of writing. My experience has been that Strunk & White provides a lot of solid information that makes a lot of sense. Williams, in turn, shows why these principles make sense, and how they can be used effectively in a variety of contexts.
The question as to which book is more effective, to me, seems to be the wrong question. I think that the books swim in different waters. I think what I got from Williams will be helpful, but I don't see myself going back to it again and again. It is very dense and it was difficult to get through. For me, the primary function of Strunk & White is as a reference, or a reminder of things easily forgotten; Williams deals with the most basic level of style--clarity, cohesion, empahsis, coherence--for me, these are things that become internalized to a large extent. I think the information in Williams needs to be digested and absorbed; it doesn't make sense to me as a reference book.
It is revealing to consider the perspectives and backgrounds of the authors of these books. Williams is a language historian, and he knows the nuts and bolts of the language because he has studied its origins (and he tells us about them in a couple of his digressions). And he is a University professor, so he deals with a lot of academic writing and, presumably, students' papers. His goal is to get people to communicate clearly so that a) society benefits and b) he can make sense of your homework. It is important to Williams to lay a solid foundation, and he can do it because he knows how English is put together.
E. B. White comes from a much different background: he is a professional writer. The issues that bug White are those of his peers, in magazines, newpapers, books, etc. White is, along with Williams, concerned with basic construction, to a certain extent, but I think White aspires to a higher level of polish. White's audience includes not only those who want merely to be understood, but also those who are trying to bring a more professional quality to their writing. White is shooting not just for intelligible homework, but for writing that is effective and reading that is enjoyable.
Two of the principles I found useful in Strunk & White were to "use the active voice" and to "omit needless words." We can find these principles in Williams too, but Williams is not writing a "little book." Williams dissects these principles to see what makes them work, and to see why they work well. Williams puts using the active voice into a larger context; he shows how this concept is interrelated with others like "characters/events" and "nominalizations." Williams is incredibly thorough and takes pains to connect every dot to every other dot. If the examples in Strunk & White could be said to be insufficient, Williams examples are ample. Rather than a quick, handy reference, Williams' book is meant to be more of an in-depth study of the nuts and bolts of writing. My experience has been that Strunk & White provides a lot of solid information that makes a lot of sense. Williams, in turn, shows why these principles make sense, and how they can be used effectively in a variety of contexts.
The question as to which book is more effective, to me, seems to be the wrong question. I think that the books swim in different waters. I think what I got from Williams will be helpful, but I don't see myself going back to it again and again. It is very dense and it was difficult to get through. For me, the primary function of Strunk & White is as a reference, or a reminder of things easily forgotten; Williams deals with the most basic level of style--clarity, cohesion, empahsis, coherence--for me, these are things that become internalized to a large extent. I think the information in Williams needs to be digested and absorbed; it doesn't make sense to me as a reference book.
It is revealing to consider the perspectives and backgrounds of the authors of these books. Williams is a language historian, and he knows the nuts and bolts of the language because he has studied its origins (and he tells us about them in a couple of his digressions). And he is a University professor, so he deals with a lot of academic writing and, presumably, students' papers. His goal is to get people to communicate clearly so that a) society benefits and b) he can make sense of your homework. It is important to Williams to lay a solid foundation, and he can do it because he knows how English is put together.
E. B. White comes from a much different background: he is a professional writer. The issues that bug White are those of his peers, in magazines, newpapers, books, etc. White is, along with Williams, concerned with basic construction, to a certain extent, but I think White aspires to a higher level of polish. White's audience includes not only those who want merely to be understood, but also those who are trying to bring a more professional quality to their writing. White is shooting not just for intelligible homework, but for writing that is effective and reading that is enjoyable.
Strunk and White: First Impressions
Strunk and White's Elements of Style is a handy little book full of grammatical tips, usage rules, and good writing advice. One of the principles that I have have found useful is "use the active voice." This has been helpful to me most in cases where I needed to state a position or make an argument of some kind. My arguments become more convincing, and my tone is more forcible when I use the active voice. The active voice usually helps the writer sound more confident, and gives strength to a text. The caveat with this rule is that, if the passive voice is almost never used, a writer can tend toward pomposity and conceit.
Another principle I have found helpful is to "omit needless words." Time and again, I find that the solution to many problems is simply eliminating words. More often than not, problems with flow, clarity, clumsiness, or awkwardness can be traced back to wordiness, at least in my own case. The more excess a writer can trim away, the more interesting, understandable, and enjoyable his work will be. I say, get to the heart of the matter as quickly as possible, say what needs to be said, and then wrap up succinctly.
One of the elements in the book that I find unhelpful happens to be the first rule: Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's. My problem with it is in the case of names that end in "s." I wouldn't normally write "Charles's," I would write "Charles.'" This is mostly a matter of personal taste--I think the "correct" way looks funny and sounds funny in my head--like a bunch of snakes or something. I don't want my prose to hiss. However, if I had to adopt style guidelines different from mine (for a newspaper or magazine), I wouldn't have a problem with it.
There was a rule in the book that I think is actually wrong (well, not wrong, but incomplete). Strunk and White say that "all right" is properly spelled "all right." However, this word can also be correctly spelled "alright" ("allright" is not correct). It may have been the case that "alright" was not accepted in the past. In that case, this rule would probably just be outdated, rather than wrong.
Another principle I have found helpful is to "omit needless words." Time and again, I find that the solution to many problems is simply eliminating words. More often than not, problems with flow, clarity, clumsiness, or awkwardness can be traced back to wordiness, at least in my own case. The more excess a writer can trim away, the more interesting, understandable, and enjoyable his work will be. I say, get to the heart of the matter as quickly as possible, say what needs to be said, and then wrap up succinctly.
One of the elements in the book that I find unhelpful happens to be the first rule: Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's. My problem with it is in the case of names that end in "s." I wouldn't normally write "Charles's," I would write "Charles.'" This is mostly a matter of personal taste--I think the "correct" way looks funny and sounds funny in my head--like a bunch of snakes or something. I don't want my prose to hiss. However, if I had to adopt style guidelines different from mine (for a newspaper or magazine), I wouldn't have a problem with it.
There was a rule in the book that I think is actually wrong (well, not wrong, but incomplete). Strunk and White say that "all right" is properly spelled "all right." However, this word can also be correctly spelled "alright" ("allright" is not correct). It may have been the case that "alright" was not accepted in the past. In that case, this rule would probably just be outdated, rather than wrong.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Revising with Williams
Academic course load is the number of hours that a student carries in a semester or session. In the fall and winter semesters, the recommended full-time course load is 12-16 hours (15 with student teaching). In the seven and one-half week spring and summer sessions, it is six to eight hours, and in the six-week spring and summer sessions, it is six hours. Fall and winter students must register for a minimum of 12 credit hours to qualify as full time for University purposes, including financial aid. For the spring and summer semesters, the minimum full-time load is six credit hours for financial aid or other purposes.
The number of credit hours that a student carries in a semester or session is his academic course load. For University purposes, including financial aid, a student must register for a minimum of 12 credit hours in the fall or winter to qualify as full-time . The minimum full-time load is 6 hours in the spring and summer. In the fall and winter semesters, we recommend a full-time course load of 12-16 hours (15 with student teaching). In the seven-and-one-half-week spring and summer sessions, full-time course load is 6-8 hours. In the six-week spring and summer sessions, full-time is 6 hours.
As Williams recommends in Chapter 2: Clarity, I wanted to highlight subjects and characters here. I tried to bring out the student (who will be directly using the information) and the University as the two main characters. The University did a good job hiding itself in this paragraph, so "recommended" became "we recommend." (And I got a de-nominalized verb to boot.)
This paragraph also lacked cohesion, so I tried to emphasize topic strings: hours, course load--> hours, full-time--> full-time, spring/summer--> fall/winter, hours--> particular semester, hours. Because this information is extremely important to new students, I wanted to begin simply, with old information, and slowly introduce new information. Therefore, I rearranged the paragraph to make it begin with the familiar concept of "hours." I then built up from this familiar information to deal with the ideas "full-time" and "full-time in different semesters." Also, where the third and fourth sentences meet, a nice rhythm appeared after revision: "...spring and summer. In the fall and winter..." Ideally, this evocation of the natural revolution of the seasons will give students a moment of peace and clarity in the face of the confusing wasteland of University regulations.
Finally, although not related to Williams, I tried to make punctuation and numerals consistent. Instead of "12-16 hours" and "six to eight hours," I standardized them to make "12-16 hours" and "6-8 hours." Punctuation also would vary from "full-time" to "full time." I chose to use the form "full-time" (apparently the more progressive form according to Strunk and White).
The number of credit hours that a student carries in a semester or session is his academic course load. For University purposes, including financial aid, a student must register for a minimum of 12 credit hours in the fall or winter to qualify as full-time . The minimum full-time load is 6 hours in the spring and summer. In the fall and winter semesters, we recommend a full-time course load of 12-16 hours (15 with student teaching). In the seven-and-one-half-week spring and summer sessions, full-time course load is 6-8 hours. In the six-week spring and summer sessions, full-time is 6 hours.
As Williams recommends in Chapter 2: Clarity, I wanted to highlight subjects and characters here. I tried to bring out the student (who will be directly using the information) and the University as the two main characters. The University did a good job hiding itself in this paragraph, so "recommended" became "we recommend." (And I got a de-nominalized verb to boot.)
This paragraph also lacked cohesion, so I tried to emphasize topic strings: hours, course load--> hours, full-time--> full-time, spring/summer--> fall/winter, hours--> particular semester, hours. Because this information is extremely important to new students, I wanted to begin simply, with old information, and slowly introduce new information. Therefore, I rearranged the paragraph to make it begin with the familiar concept of "hours." I then built up from this familiar information to deal with the ideas "full-time" and "full-time in different semesters." Also, where the third and fourth sentences meet, a nice rhythm appeared after revision: "...spring and summer. In the fall and winter..." Ideally, this evocation of the natural revolution of the seasons will give students a moment of peace and clarity in the face of the confusing wasteland of University regulations.
Finally, although not related to Williams, I tried to make punctuation and numerals consistent. Instead of "12-16 hours" and "six to eight hours," I standardized them to make "12-16 hours" and "6-8 hours." Punctuation also would vary from "full-time" to "full time." I chose to use the form "full-time" (apparently the more progressive form according to Strunk and White).
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Peer Review Recap Part 1
I think peer-review is very important. I got a lot of good comments from my group members; some tips that really improved my paper. As always, there were a few sections in my paper that I just wasn't comfortable with. Maybe they sounded odd or flowed poorly or something else, but I just couldn't put my finger on what was wrong. Peer-review helps to tackle these areas and pin down what is really going on. No matter who the writer is, there will always be things that escape him. The human mind cannot escape a certain level of subjectivity that will color its perceptions. A sentence may be poorly written, but I will never be able to recognize this unless I have another person point it out to me, because I am me (if that makes any sense--I'm not at all certain it does). Would any professional writer think of writing without an editor? Two (or three) heads are better than one. I found that when I would re-read my paper, I would read it as I had originally composed it in my head--this is not necessarily how my audience reads it. I have a feel for my own rhythms and how they should play out, but it can be difficult to convey these in a soundless medium. I know how my ideal paper sounds in my head, but I don't necessarily transmit this version to the reader, and certain amount of the revising process is trying to make my actual paper more like my mental paper. One of the best ways to do this is through peer-review.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)